This is one of those things where a congressman asks an agency to do a study like this to satisfy a particular interest. This is probably a Baltimore area elected representing that commuter constituency. I doubt it has any more legs than that.

by jnb on Feb 22, 2012 3:00 pm  

The MARC Growth and Investment Plan would do so much more to improve people's ability to get around in this corridor.

For about the same amount of money (the $990 million estimate on page 14 of this powerpoint includes lots of work north of Baltimore) we could have trains on the Penn Line every 15-20 minutes in rush hour and every 30 minutes off-peak.

by Ben Ross on Feb 22, 2012 3:04 pm  

An enlargement of this historic carriageway could expand the vista-shed and sightline experience for a greater number of automobiles. It will be intetesting to see what the study finds.

by aaa on Feb 22, 2012 3:09 pm  

Instead, lets spend that money on expanding service on the MARC Penn Line. Weekend service should be a no-brainer.

by Al Carr on Feb 22, 2012 3:10 pm  

"Adding lanes to the parkway would also hurt the developed communities it passes through."

I know people here can argue over what is and isn't a parkway based on NPS interpretations and other road definitions, but what part of this segment of road is hurting developed communities? It's largely a scenic route through "parkland."

by selxic on Feb 22, 2012 3:10 pm  

Feh. Much better to expand service on the MARC Penn Line than to expand the Parkway.

I'm not a fan of extending Green Line service, only because I think that would make for an overextension of the Metro system...or at the very least the Green Line itself. What about another form of transit along the Parkway? Another rail line, neither the MARC Penn Line or the Metro?

by Ser Amantio di Nicolao on Feb 22, 2012 3:31 pm  

Any widening of the parkway should be a bike path.

by Steve on Feb 22, 2012 3:48 pm  

Widening it to 3 lanes each way is unnecessary. At the most, improvements would be:

1) Lengthen merge lanes.
2) Improve/modernize interchanges (route 32 interchange is a particularly dangerous cloverleaf, and the beltway one isn't great either).
3) Add a bike lane in each direction.

by Nick on Feb 22, 2012 4:07 pm  

Which link on the FHA website is the actual study?

by Fitz on Feb 22, 2012 4:08 pm  

+1 for adding a bike path in each direction!

by MrTinDC on Feb 22, 2012 4:10 pm  

Add a complete shoulder lane and you get rid of a lot of the traffic backups caused by broken-down or pulled-over cars that must take up part of the travel lane. Improving some of the merge areas would help as well.

I would be curious as to how many cars on the BW Parkway would be removed by better MARC service. Any cars going to Goddard would not, cars going to College Park would likely not due to the location of the MARC station and the fact that it is on the Camden, not Penn Line. Cars going to Ft Meade would not be served by MARC nor would cars using the parkway as a way to get to the beltway.

by dcdriver on Feb 22, 2012 4:23 pm  

Adding a bike lane would be a huge addition to the midatlantic bike network. You could then ride from Pittsburg to DC and then on to B'more. Perhaps in the future it will be possible to ride from DC all the way to NY (or even Boston!) on a dedicated bike path.

Adding vehicle lanes is just plain dumb. Sure, the BW Parkway is a "scenic" route and I always take it over 95 but, it is still a road intended for carrying vehicles and I doubt many of the daily commuters stuck in rush hour traffic think "this traffic jam is a great opportunity for me to appreciate the scenic beauty of the manicured lawns and managed trees of the BW Parkway!"

by A Biker on Feb 22, 2012 4:26 pm  

At the price, widening the Parkway is probably prohibitive, but I have a few bones to pick with the article. The failure to mention that a key motivation for this study is to examine whether more Parkway capacity can mitigate the effects of BRAC is an egregious omission -- more commuting traffic is coming to the area because of decisions Congress has already made, whether or not road and transit improvements & expansions are made to accommodate them.

The article also stretches the spurious dichotomy between "moving more people" and "moving more cars" far beyond what that distinction can take. While more transit might be a more efficient or desirable way to move more people than adding lanes to the Parkway, it's hardly the case that a Parkway that moves more cars will *not* move more people at the same time. (And obviously we could ensure that the effects are even greater by, for example, adding HOV capacity instead).

Finally, any discussion of how widening the Parkway will impact the nearby communities is woefully incomplete without examining the opportunities created by diverting some car traffic from parallel routes including U.S. 1, MD 3, MD 170, and secondary routes. Because of the alignment and design of the Parkway, these other roads are much more central to communities such as Laurel, Savage, and Odenton than the Parkway. Of course, it appears that the linked study (like many flawed transportation studies) will examine the Parkway in isolation. But we should consider the whole picture.

by Arl Anon on Feb 22, 2012 4:31 pm  

Amtrak says it needs $595 million to add one more track between Baltimore and Washington.

by Jim Titus on Feb 22, 2012 5:12 pm  

"Space constraints mean that any widening requires a combination of both inside and outside widening as well as rebuilding numerous overpasses and underpasses. "

The overpasses (over the parkway) appear to have been designed to accomdate a thord lane in each direction, with demolition needed not for those, but rather the stone covered walls erected about 15 years ago along th eright hand shoulder.

The AASHTO option IIRC sounds like an interstate highway specification with full left shoulders- will the new pavement be designed for truckss I wonder? After all, the BW parkway from Lauren south was considered as futue I-95 once true I-95 (PEPCO-B&O) was rashly cancelled during the 1970s.

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/01/i-95-baltimore-washington-parkway_18.html

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 22, 2012 8:13 pm  

@Douglas Willinger:
There are several bridges over the parkway that will have to be rebuilt, as will several interchanges.

As an example, look at the Route 193 overpass. It's already 3-lanes wide, but any widening would keep the auxiliary lanes (making the cross-section 4 lanes wide at the 193 overpass).

Here's a streetview of that location: http://g.co/maps/wbv73

by Matt Johnson on Feb 22, 2012 10:00 pm  

We are both right- designed to accomdate 3 lanes per direction, but sometimes that space is already taken by an auxillarly lsne.

The first overpass to the south is what I am thinking of.

Here's a link-

http://maps.google.com/?ll=38.994723,-76.881428&spn=0.002393,0.00456&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.994554,-76.881293&panoid=Hx0DiUhCX7qARNOcMqGJ1w&cbp=12,42.76,,0,0

How did you get such a shorter link?

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 22, 2012 10:53 pm  

And my link merely goes to what you pointed to, even though what I cut and paste was what was there when I moved to that next bridge and went to a street scene- its a great tool!

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 22, 2012 10:55 pm  

I should add that the 193 bridge looks much like what existed with MD 50 outside the Beltway until about 1993 when they rebuilt it to interstate spec.

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 22, 2012 10:58 pm  

The National Motorists Association addressed this very idea in 2011:

http://alerts.motorists.org/nma-maryland-alert-should-the-baltimore-washi

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 22, 2012 11:00 pm  

Seriously people!?!? Nothing could be a more ridiculous waste of time and money than adding a bike lane to the BW parkway. It's not a legitimate or realistic mode of transportation for anyone. No one is going to commute all the way from DC to Bmore via bicycle. It's 40 miles for christs sake. It would get used very rarely by a small set of fitness nuts for one time trips to nowhere just for the sake of biking itself. That is maybe if we put jersey barriers along the entire length of it protecting them from cars whizzing by at 70 mph.

I'm all for bike lanes in the city where normal people will use them on an everyday basis. However, just because bike lanes are good at that scale doesn't mean we need an interstate bike network. I certainly don't want my tax dollars paying for such ridiculous nonsense. We might as well construct a freaking canal in the median so people can kayak to Baltimore if they want to. Yeeash...

I do agree with those who would rather see some money go towards enhancing the MARC train over the purposed third lane though.

by Doug on Feb 23, 2012 8:24 am  

@Douglas Willinger

For a shorter link (and a link that works), look to the left of your map/street view. There's a little chain link button (right next to the printer button). Click that and it brings up a little box where you can copy the link for your view. You can also check the "short URL" box in that popup to get a shorter link.

by MLD on Feb 23, 2012 8:35 am  

@Doug
Most people commuting aren't traveling the full distance from Washington to Baltimore. With BRAC an increasing number of people are using the corridor to go between SE DC (or points south/east) and Ft. Meade. Traffic is nearly at a stand still in the morning and night and there is not an alternative route or mass transit available. I know plenty who would use a bike lane for a commute.

by upandover on Feb 23, 2012 9:33 am  

The article also stretches the spurious dichotomy between "moving more people" and "moving more cars" far beyond what that distinction can take. While more transit might be a more efficient or desirable way to move more people than adding lanes to the Parkway, it's hardly the case that a Parkway that moves more cars will *not* move more people at the same time.

And who said the expanded parkway wouldn't move more people? That's not the question - the question is if such an expansion is a wise investment.

by Alex B. on Feb 23, 2012 9:41 am  

@Alex B.: Am I misreading this passage?

The region does not need to invest hundreds of millions in this corridor simply to move more cars. Increasing mobility means moving more people. (Emphasis in original).

Seems to me Matt's claim goes well beyond whether the expansion is a "wise investment" to the question of whether it provides any benefit at all. Yet even if, with expansion, traffic delays are just as bad in 2040 as they are now, it will be even worse without expansion if more people will be taking the Parkway.

by Arl Fan on Feb 23, 2012 10:06 am  

based on the above discussion it does seem like expanding the road (with presumably an HOV/HOT lane(s)) might make sense, but should be studied in a full multimodal corridor study. Of the transit options, it looks like MARC Penn line expansion has the best bang for the buck. Whether Penn Line expansion could defer the need for highway expansion significantly, Im not sure. It would depend in part on the origin-destination combinations, I guess.

I presume bike lanes for both recreational and commuter use could be integrated into the project at fairly moderate cost?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 23, 2012 10:06 am  

@Arl Fan

Seems to me Matt's claim goes well beyond whether the expansion is a "wise investment" to the question of whether it provides any benefit at all.

Yes, I think you're misreading it.

If you needed to spend $500 million on that corridor, investing in MARC expansion would be a wiser choice, since it will provide more bang for your buck.

It's a simple matter of opportunity cost. The question is not road expansion vs. no investment, it's a question of $500m worth of road expansion vs. $500 million worth of transit expansion.

by Alex B. on Feb 23, 2012 10:15 am  

@Doug

The W&OD/Custis trail goes from almost West Virginia to DC. It is one of the most heavily used bike paths for commuting purposes in the country. I don't see why a BW Parkway bike path couldn't be similarly heavily used. Bear in mind that few people travel the entire length of the bike path for commuting, just like few people use the entire length of I70 for commuting.

by Falls Church on Feb 23, 2012 11:34 am  

That would be a great bike path. The road, IIRC, doesn't really have any major hills, just some gently rolling stuff. A ride all the way to the Inner Harbor would be a great piece of an east coast network.

by Jack Love on Feb 23, 2012 12:17 pm  

There's a difference between a bike lane and a bike trail.

by selxic on Feb 23, 2012 1:42 pm  

Plenty of room for both and the 3rd lane each way. But does nothing to improve access to upper WDC- unlike PEPCO-B&O I-95.

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 23, 2012 1:45 pm  

@Alex B.: The question is not road expansion vs. no investment, it's a question of $500m worth of road expansion vs. $500 million worth of transit expansion.

My guess is it will come down to "little investment" vs. "no investment," actually, and it's probably true that rail expansion would be a better bet for the corridor. But I still think that Matt's article (like the study he's critiquing) is too focused on Parkway expansion in isolation, which makes it less convincing than it would be framed your way.

by Arl Fan on Feb 23, 2012 2:44 pm  

My observation from the discussion in subject:

- I take it that most of the commentators don't drive on the B-W Parkway on regular bases and don't care about the thousands of daily commuters that clogged the parkway between Laurel and New York Avenue/DC.

-MARC Train has been in service since the 70's and that is more than enough time to improve the service to LI RR/Metro North/NJ Transit Levels on ALL of the Marc routes.

-Its one thing to use the MARC as an attempt to throw a monkey wrench to derail the subject of widening the B-W Parkway but loses TOTAL CREDIBILITY for not supporting the Green Line Subway Extension to BWI Airport. If they can build a Subway to Loudoun County then the same can be done for the Green Line Subway Extending to Anne Arundel County and save the BS arguments for improving MARC services as i said earlier that MARC had over 30 years to improve its services.

-Adding Bike Lanes on the B-W Parkway is the most Insane and Desperate attempt to derail the purpose of improving Traffic Flow on the Parkway. If the Belt parkway and Southern States Parkway in NY can accommodate 8 lanes without any issues then the B-W Parkway can handle 6-8 lanes between Baltimore and DC.

-It is very strange that the people arguing for Extending MARC Train Service and adding useless Bike Paths along the B-W Parkway as Alternatives for Adding more Lanes to the Parkway will not admit that it is not beneficial to commuters and interstate travelers because I-66 Inside of the Beltway have Rapid Trains, Buses, and Bike Paths and now they are in plans to widen I-66(also a No Trucks allowed Parkway inside the beltway) to 6-8 Lanes from DC to Vienna....

From what I can conclude is that the people that are opposing the B-W Parkway widening are doing soo in hopes to further discourage new people moving to the DC area from choosing Maryland as a place to reside due to lack of Interstate Highway access to DC unlike Virginia that has the 10-12 Lane I-395 and the future 6-8 Lane I-66....

by Mel on Feb 24, 2012 1:24 am  

The major employer along the BW Parkway (295) is clearly Ft Meade, which hosts DISA and other DoD activities. There are thousands of workers going to/from Ft Meade each workday. Ft Meade is roughly located at the intersection of MD-295 and MD-32.

More transit capacity is needed, including at least:

A) Extend WMATA Green Line north along the railway tracks,
adding stops at the Federal site just north of I-495, at
Beltsville, and somewhere on the west site of Ft Meade,
probably somewhere along MD-32.

B) Extend Baltimore's Light Rail west from BWI at
least to connect with the eastern side of Ft Meade.

C) Ideally items A and B share a common station, to enable easy
transfers, but it would be enough if each were extended.

D) Some developers would put some business hotels (e.g. Marriott Spring Hill Suites, Hyatt Place, or Hampton Inn) along Route 32, just north of 295,
to reduce the currently silly commutes of business visitors to the fort
from other the current locations of such business hotels.

by Anonymous Coward on Feb 24, 2012 1:46 pm  

I think you can already kayak between DC and Baltimore but a canal on the BW Parkway would be more direct I also would think.

by torae on Feb 24, 2012 3:44 pm  

@Anonymous Coward

All of those options can be accomplish after the B-W Parkay is widen to accommodate the commuting traffic between DC and Baltimore...

I could understand if they were trying to change he format from no trucks to all vehicles but it is not and Widening the parkway to 6-8 lanes will not be a wasted investment.

If Belt Parkway in NY can be 8 lanes then so can the Baltimore Washington Parkway........

by Kris on Feb 25, 2012 1:17 pm  

@torae

A canal on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway as an alternative to widen the highway is insane and will do nothing to improve traffic flow on the parkway.

Making the Parkway 6-8 Lanes is the way to go and to argue against it is done out of not caring about the people that use the highway to get to and from Baltimore and DC.....

Using alternatives is also another way of displaying lack of concern for people that have to use the highway for personal purpose.

You can't force people to ride trains, ride bikes, and ride boats just because a a small group of people despise automobiles or despise people using automobile in certain regions of the united states.

by Kris on Feb 25, 2012 1:25 pm  

Are you for real?

by NikolasM on Feb 25, 2012 3:29 pm  

With this proposed project AND the new 11th Street Bridges, upgrades to the "DC 295" segment are needed, including taking it to a minimum of 4 lanes in each direction, with generous cut and cover tunnel segments to better connect the area locally with the Anacostia waterfront.

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/04/dc-295-kenilworth-avenue-corridor.html

The proposed 6 lane trench with very short tunnel segments, let alone the surface level boulevard option to maximize pedestrian-vehicular conflict, just does not cut it- and excludes the logical "Extending the Legacy" idea of extending the East Capitol axis[s] eastward with an underground interchange with 295.

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 25, 2012 6:04 pm  

@NikolasM

Yeah I am for real and a real life Maryland Tax Payer unlike some others.

by Kris on Feb 26, 2012 1:00 pm  

I assumed he was commenting on the kayak comment. That's crazier than bike lanes alongside the Parkway. Only on GGW am I not sure if that's a joke.

by selxic on Feb 26, 2012 4:16 pm  

@selxic

If that is the case then I totally understand the question he asked because yes that is insane to believe that a canal would help ease traffic on the B-W Parkway.

If parkways like the Belt Parkway and Southern States Parkway can be 8 Lanes then so can the B-W Parkway.

by Kris on Feb 26, 2012 11:24 pm  

@dcdriver

Looking at where people are going would not help much if the places where they are starting from are not near transit.

On the Balt-Wash Parkway people are either coming via NY Ave Route 50 or 295 you have to look at where are the possible places those people could come from.

Transit wont help people that are not traveling to areas that have good to moderate transit. There is no area within a mile of the Parkway that has a station MARC, Amtrak or WMATA.

by kk on Feb 27, 2012 11:13 pm